Resumo Antecedentes Dor lombar crônica (DLC) é um problema de saúde global, e a gabapentina e a pregabalina são frequentemente utilizadas no tratamento de pacientes sem radiculopatia ou neuropatia associada. Por isso, determinar sua eficácia e segurança é de enorme valor. Objetivo Examinar a eficácia e segurança do uso de gabapentina e pregabalina no tratamento da DLC sem radiculopatia ou neuropatia. Métodos Realizamos uma pesquisa nas bases de dados CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS e Web of Science por ensaios clínicos, coortes e estudos de caso e controle que avaliassem pacientes com DLC sem radiculopatia ou neuropatia por pelo menos oito semanas. Os dados foram extraídos e inseridos em uma planilha previamente elaborada no programa Microsoft Excel; os desfechos foram avaliados com a ferramenta RoB 2 tool da Cochrane, e a qualidade das evidências, pelo sistema Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Resultados Dos 2.230 artigos identificados, apenas 5 foram incluídos, com um total de 242 participantes. Neles, a pregabalina foi ligeiramente menos eficaz do que a amitriptilina, a combinação de tramadol/acetaminofeno, e o celecoxibe, assim como a pregabalina adicionada ao celecoxibe não mostrou benefício em comparação ao uso isolado de celecoxibe (evidência muito baixa para todos). Quanto à gabapentina, embora um estudo não respalde seu uso para uma amostra geral de pacientes com lombalgia, outro encontrou redução na escala de dor e melhora da mobilidade (evidência moderada). Nenhum evento adverso grave foi observado nos estudos. Conclusão Há carência de informações de qualidade que sustentem o uso de pregabalina ou gabapentina no tratamento da DLC sem radiculopatia ou neuropatia, embora resultados possam sugerir que a gabapentina é uma opção viável. Mais dados são necessários para preencher essa atual lacuna no conhecimento. (DLC global associada isso valor CENTRAL MEDLINE EMBASE clínicos semanas Excel Cochrane evidências Assessment GRADE. GRADE . (GRADE) 2230 230 2.23 identificados incluídos 24 participantes Neles amitriptilina tramadolacetaminofeno tramadol acetaminofeno tramadol/acetaminofeno evidência todos. todos todos) lombalgia moderada. moderada moderada) viável conhecimento (GRADE 223 23 2.2 22 2.

Abstract Background Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or neuropathy. Therefore, determining their efficacy and safety is of enormous value. Objective To examine the efficacy and safety of using gabapentin and pregabalin for CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy. Methods We performed a search on the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Web of Science data bases for clinical trials, cohorts, and case-control studies that evaluated patients with CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy for at least eight weeks. The data were extracted and inserted into a previously-prepared Microsoft Excel spreadsheet; the outcomes were evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and the quality of evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results Of the 2,230 articles identified, only 5 were included, totaling 242 participants. In them, pregabalin was slightly less efficacious than amitriptyline, the combination of tramadol/acetaminophen, and celecoxib, and pregabalin added to celecoxib showed no benefit when compared to celecoxib alone (very low evidence for all). On the other hand, although one study with gabapentin did not support its use in a general sample of patients with low back pain, another found a reduction in the pain scale and improved mobility (moderate evidence). No serious adverse events were observed in any of the studies. Conclusion Quality information to support the use of pregabalin or gabapentin in the treatment of CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy is lacking, although results may suggest gabapentin as a viable option. More data is needed to fill this current gap in knowledge. (CLBP problem Therefore value CENTRAL MEDLINE EMBASE LILACS trials cohorts casecontrol case control weeks previouslyprepared previously prepared spreadsheet tool Assessment GRADE (GRADE system 2230 230 2,23 identified included 24 participants them amitriptyline tramadolacetaminophen tramadol acetaminophen tramadol/acetaminophen very all. all . all) hand moderate evidence. evidence) lacking option knowledge 223 23 2,2 22 2,

ABSTRACT Objective To describe the technical specificities and feasibility of simulation of minimally invasive spine surgery in live pigs, as well as similarities and differences in comparison to surgery in humans. Methods A total of 22 Large White class swine models, weighing between 60 and 80kg, were submitted to surgical simulations, performed during theoretical-practical courses for training surgical techniques (microsurgical and endoscopic lumbar decompression; percutaneous pedicular instrumentation; lateral access to the thoracic spine, and anterior and retroperitoneal to the lumbar spine, and management of complications) by 86 spine surgeons. For each surgical technique, porcine anatomy (similarities and differences in relation to human anatomy), access route, and dimensions of the instruments and implants used were evaluated. Thus, the authors describe the feasibility of each operative simulation, as well as suggestions to optimize training. Study results are descriptive, with figures and drawings. Results Neural decompression surgeries (microsurgeries and endoscopic) and pedicular instrumentation presented higher similarities to surgery on humans. On the other hand, intradiscal procedures had limitations due to the narrow disc space in swines. We were able to simulate situations of surgical trauma in surgical complication scenarios, such as cerebrospinal fluid fistulas and excessive bleeding, with comparable realism to surgery on humans. Conclusion A porcine model for simulation of minimally invasive spinal surgical techniques had similarities with surgery on humans, and is therefore feasible for surgeon training.

As hérnias de disco lombares apresentam-se como foraminais ou extra-foraminais em até 11,7% dos casos. Seu tratamento cirúrgico através de facetectomias pode causar dor e instabilidade, o que não ocorre com a utilização de acessos cirúrgicos posteriores laterais ao canal central, quer seja por via transmuscular ou paramuscular. Nosso objetivo foi comparar o ângulo de trabalho relativo ao forame intervertebral permitido por cada via e avaliar possíveis implicações cirúrgicas. Dissecções e medidas realizadas em doze cadáveres frescos demonstraram que este ângulo é maior na via transmuscular em todos os níveis lombares estudados. Dado que um ângulo mais favorável permite uma ressecção menor das estruturas envolvidas para que se estabeleça o campo de trabalho, a cirurgia por meio da via transmuscular permitirá, então, um trauma cirúrgico menor. Nossos resultados corroboram publicações prévias que apontam a via transmuscular como a melhor opção cirúrgica.

Foraminal and extra-foraminal disc herniations comprise up to 11.7% of all lumbar disc herniations. Facetectomy, which had been the classic approach, is now recognized as cause of pain and instability after surgery. Otherwise, posterior lateral approaches through a trans-muscular or a para-muscular technique offer no significant damage to key structures for spinal stability. The surgical anatomy of these approaches has already been described, but they were not compared. In order to quantify the angle of vision towards the intervertebral foramen offered by each technique, 12 fresh cadavers were dissected and studied regarding these approaches. The angle presented by trans-muscular approach was wider in all studied lumbar levels. Surgery through the trans-muscular approach is performed with a better working angle, requiring a smaller resection of surrounding tissues. Therefore, minor surgical trauma can be expected. Our measurements support previously published data that point the trans-muscular approach as the best surgical option.